Notes
It is located on a terrace at the southern gate of the Isthmus, about two miles from the Gulf of Corinth and at the foot of the 1,886-foot (575-meter)-high Acrocorinth. For descriptions of the city, see esp. Strabo, Geography 8.6.20–23 (written ca. 7 B.C.) and Pausanias, Description of Greece, Book II: Corinth (ca. A.D. 170). These texts, and many others, are conveniently brought together and discussed in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth. For the history of Corinth during the Roman period one should consult J. Wiseman, “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C.–A.D. 267,” in ANRW 7.1:438–548.
Cf. Strabo, Geography 8.6.20: “Corinth is called ‘wealthy’ because of its commerce since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbours, of which the one [Cenchreae] leads straight to Asia, and the other [Lechaeum] to Italy; and it makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each other. And also the duties on what by land was exported from the Peloponnesus and what was imported to it fell to those who held the keys” (Loeb, 4:189–91).
In fact Latin was its official language well beyond the time of Paul. See Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 5.
See the discussion and bibliography on 7:22.
No scientific attempt has been made to estimate its population. See Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 31–32. Nonetheless, after Rome and Alexandria, it would certainly have vied for distinction as the third city of the Empire.
This has been demonstrated by H. Conzelmann, “Korinth und die Mädchen der Aphrodite. Zur Religionsgeschichte der Stadt Korinth,” NAG 8 (1967–68), 247–61. Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 55–57.
Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 78–80.
For the significance of this, see on 1:10–17 and 9:3–14.
Acts 18:1–8; 1 Cor. 1:10–17; 16:15–17; Rom. 16:23.
Some believe Gaius Titius Justus to be the full name of one person; see .
Cf. Theissen, 69–174, whose overall thesis is that this tension is the basic cause of the divisions in the church—although he sees it more specifically as a rivalry among the rich.
From time to time some have argued for such. See e.g., J. M. Ford, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians or the First Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 28 (1966), 402–16 (for other items see ) and the dissertation by J. B. Hurley (see ). Cf. also the arguments for Philonic background by B. Pearson, R. A. Horsley, and J. A. Davis discussed below (pp. 14–15). But such a view runs aground on the explicit evidence of the letter.
Hurley’s dissertation is an esp. interesting, but unconvincing, piece of scholarly logic. There is in fact no explicit indication of any kind that 1 Corinthians is addressed to Jews; whereas there are several such indications that the believers were Gentiles. Thus Hurley attempts two things: (1) to show that both the explicit and implicit references do not necessarily require a Gentile congregation (here he is esp. unconvincing); and (2) to show that by assuming a Jewish audience one can make sense of the various items. On the latter he has more success with some (e.g., 11:2–16) than with others (6:12–20; 7:1–40; 8–10). It is striking that the self-confessed “apostle to the Gentiles,” when writing to the most thoroughly Hellenistic city in the NT, should be thought to be writing to a Diaspora Jewish congregation. All the evidence suggests otherwise.
This is one of the few certain dates in the NT, and the one from which most Pauline dates are ultimately derived. That this is so is the result of the Gallio inscription (see the discussion in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 141–52) and the references in Acts 18:12, which place Paul and Gallio in Corinth at some point between A.D. 50 and 52.
On this see esp. the introduction to 1:10–4:21 and the commentary on 1:12. Cf. also the introductions to 2:6–16 and 12–14, which have also been understood, quite incorrectly it would seem, as revealing “groups” within the church itself. But in fact Paul says nothing of the kind, and the exegesis of these passages reveals a considerably different kind of issue in each case.
It is common to understand the “weak” and “gnostics” of chaps. 8–10 as belonging to the “parties” of 1:11. But that is highly questionable, and in any case there is no hint of any kind in those chapters that the church is internally divided on that matter. See the commentary (intro. to 8:1–11:1).
See on 4:7; cf. 7:21, 27; 8:9–10; 14:16–17; 15:36–37.
Although much of his reconstruction of the relationship between Paul and Corinth is less than convincing, it is to Hurd’s credit that he took seriously this eminently reasonable historical probability (see esp. 50–58). The majority of commentators tend to overlook any relationship between Paul’s first letter to them and their letter to him.
This order of events cannot be proved, of course, but it seems to make good sense of the data. It also helps to make sense of the apparent discrepancies between what is really going on in the church and the “official” stance presented in their letter (as, e.g., in 11:2).
See esp. on 4:14–21.
To this extent Ellis, 103, is correct in arguing that “in 1 Corinthians . . . there are . . . no opponents.” But he seems to overlook too much in this letter to reject the notion of opposition altogether.
See on 1:12; 4:3, 6, 18–20; 9:3; 10:29–30; 14:37; 15:12.
It should be noted in this regard that although Paul at times refers to those in the community who oppose him (e.g., 4:18–20; 9:3), the letter itself is addressed to the whole church; and with but two noticeable exceptions (7:1–40; 11:2–16), they come under some pretty heavy fire (cf. 1:10–4:21, with its mixture of irony, rhetoric, and sarcasm; or 5:1–13 and 6:1–11, where he takes on the whole church far more than the guilty parties [esp. with the stinging sarcasm of 6:5]; or 8:1–11:1, where he parries with them using every form of argumentation).
Very likely 2:15 is something of a sideswipe at their accusation: “The pneumatikos [meaning himself in this case] . . . is not subject to anyone’s judgment.”
Only 4:18; 9:3; and 15:12 single them out—although they are probably also in view in the threefold “if anyone thinks he is (wise, full of knowledge, spiritual)” (3:18; 8:2; 14:37).
If this is so, and all the evidence seems to point in this direction, then the play on the terms “of the flesh” (= made of fleshly stuff) and “of the flesh” (= living from the old-age point of view) in 3:1–3. See the commentary.
Gnosticism (see ).
Weisheit (see ).
Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (AGJU 10; Leiden, 1971).
See the critique, inter alia, in R. McL. Wilson, “How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?” NTS 19 (1972/73), 65–74; and Pearson, 51–81.
On this matter see esp. A. C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1977/78), 510–26.
See the introduction to chaps. 7 and 11:2–16.
Origin, 213–96.
J. R. Richards’s argument that Romans precedes 1 Corinthians is quite unconvincing (“Romans and 1 Corinthians: Their Chronological Relationship and Comparative Dates,” NTS 13 [1966/67], 14–30).
Among others, see the critique by Barrett, 7–8. Despite some intriguing suggestions, the alleged parallels between our 1 Corinthians and the Decree are viable only on the hypothesis of certain exegetical conclusions, which are doubtful at best. Although brilliantly conceived, Hurd’s thesis has been unable to attract many followers.
See the .
Cf. Davis, 81: “Our investigation . . . has disclosed that it is quite possible to interpret the manifestation of wisdom at Corinth . . . against the background of later sapiential Judaism.” One may grant that, but what he feels is confirmed by the analysis of 2:6–3:20 is likewise only possible. If Paul is attacking a form of Hellenized Judaism, it is most perceptible as Hellenism, not Judaism. The inability to carry this scheme through the entire letter—or to gainsay the explicitly pagan nature of so much of their argument—is what finally defeats it, attractive as some of its features are.
Davis, 189 n. 26.
The attempt to do this may be found esp. in the various introductions, both to the major sections of the letter and to the smaller parts.
See esp. the discussion in Hurd, 43–47.
See on chaps. 1–3; 7:25–40; 8–10; 12–14. Cf. J. Collins, “Chiasmus, the ABA′ Pattern and the Text of Paul,” in Studia Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus (Rome, 1963), 2:575–84.
Thus (a) 8:1–13/(b) 9:1–27/(a) 10:1–22; (a) 1:10–2:5/(b) 2:6–16/(a) 3:1–23; (a) 7:15–28/(b) 29–35/(a) 36–40; (a)12/(b)13/(a) 14.
Hurd, 47.